|
'De-evolution' (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
what kind of selection pressure would promote non communication. |
What if human beings suddenly lost the ability to hear, see, or both? That would certainly threaten our entire species, unless it were somehow genetic or perhaps a reaction to pollution, radiation in our atmosphere, etc. I would image it'd also certainly change the way we communicate with one another, don't you think? |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
What if human beings suddenly lost the ability to hear, see, or both? That would certainly threaten our entire species, unless it were somehow genetic or perhaps a reaction to pollution, radiation in our atmosphere, etc. I would image it'd also certainly change the way we communicate with one another, don't you think? |
right that would have to be a dominant gene to increase the likely hood of dispersal, but not necessarily depending on how many generatoins you want to go. keep in mind sexual selection and offpsring survival and competiton. Whats to say that the healthy humans wouldnt dominate the unhealthy ones (ones without disabilities) its the rule of the jungle so it may as well apply here.
If it were to occur to everyone then thats also a different story. lets say hearing because sight is too drastic. Sure it would change things, sign language would have to be developed or used (if it wasnt carried on from before). If the group were to survive over tens of generations, heritable traits such as strong smell or better hearing, better dexterity would probably be selected for. There would still be communication assuming our brains were similar. I don't think we would become nomadic and primitive so easily. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
It seems to me that man evolved as a result of a challenging world. Our intelligence is derived from facing the world around us, and if you were to remove those challenges and provide a constant food supply, our intelligence would no longer be required and would diminish over time. |
Social species tend to create their own "challenges," one of those challenges being to stay at the top of the group's mating hierarchy. So I don't think that selective pressures would disappear even if food and shelter were taken care of. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
|
| quote: | | A person diagnosed with schizophrenia may demonstrate ... disorganized and unusual thinking and speech; this may range from loss of train of thought and subject flow, with sentences only loosely connected in meaning, to incoherence, known as word salad, in severe cases. |
|
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ridexer
Society really is the thing, that sets us apart from other animals... |
A popular misconception. We are not apart at all. |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| That's not how evolution works. Evolution occurs when natural selection chooses a random mutation to live on. Evolution is completely random without natural selection to guide it. Social surroundings have nothing to do with it, nothing guides evolution except survival. Nothing besides genetic engineering can sway the mutations. they are random. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
plus it takes alot of weeding out to get rid of those genes. perhaps thousands of generations. |
true. Op said 1000 years.. That's nowhere near long enough for significant biological differentiation to occur |
|
|
| Ridexer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
A popular misconception. We are not apart at all. |
Well yeah, but we're on much higher level intellectually, culturally,tecnologically (chimps using sticks and stones is proably our nearest runner up) and lingually. |
|
|
| Cpt.Cocaine |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
I don't think we would lose mental capacity genetically because those genes responsible for higher order functions would not make you less likely to breed so they would remain in the gene pool. |
Not necessarily. Having the mental capacities we currently have is only profitable if the species can afford the incredibly long and energy-demanding growth rate that comes with it. Species that are put under very strong selection pressures tend to have simpler brains, because it allows more energy to be diverted towards more rapid development, which gives you faster reproduction and thus minimizes the risk of an individual dying before passing on it's genes. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
true. Op said 1000 years.. That's nowhere near long enough for significant biological differentiation to occur |
hmm, |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ridexer
Well yeah, but we're on much higher level intellectually, culturally,tecnologically (chimps using sticks and stones is proably our nearest runner up) and lingually. |
do you honestly think that our intelligence levels have changed since 5000 years ago?
ok so what about 10,000 years ago?
i dont think significantly.
REMEMBER. how much more intelligent were the native americans when the europeans made first contact then the nomadic tribes which hunted wolly mamoth?
I think if you took a baby from 10,000 years ago and raised him in the 20th century they may have been able to adapt to our society.
I don't see how 10,000 years alone could bring up huge biological changes in the brain when morphologically we are practically identical.
Keep this in mind as well. What selection pressures have we faced in the past 5000 years or so? Havent we been simply changing our environment so it adapts to us? |
|
|
|
|
